Florida Christians Push For The Death Penalty For Those Having An Abortion

Holy hell.

This is nearly an unbelievable story, but here it is:

Abortion Florida has launched a petition calling for an amendment to the state constitution that deems medical termination of a pregnancy to be a premeditated murder under Florida state law — making women who have abortions and their doctors eligible for the death penalty.

It gets worse:

Christian News Wire said, “Under the proposed amendment, anyone who performs or procures an abortion would be charged with first degree, pre-meditated murder. ‘Abortion’ would include any abortifacient drug or device that can kill an embryo by preventing implantation, as well as the intentional destruction of unwanted IVF embryos. The amendment would define life as beginning at fertilization rather than ‘conception,’ and declares that ‘abortion deprives an innocent human being of the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

So the women getting the procedure, and the doctors who perform them, could be executed. You could also be prosecuted for taking birth control.

These fucking hypocrites call themselves ‘Pro Life’ yet have no qualms about sentencing women and doctors to death if they don’t do as they’re told.

It’s 2016 and we still have people so blinded by magic books that they think it’s okay to kill people for doing something they deem to be against that book. These people probably look back at the Dark Ages as a time of prosperity. I wonder how many of them are also pro-death sentence; we all know that pro-life and pro-death sentence go hand in hand.

Such utter madness.

 

Advertisements

66 Comments

  1. From their about page:

    “We are evangelical Christians who believe that the only right way to fight evil is with God and His Word. Abortion, nor any societal evil for that matter, will ever be abolished without appealing to the higher law of God. We refuse to “leave religion out of it”, because without God, there is no basis for right and wrong. Instead of relying upon how the world says we ought to fight evil, we rely upon how God says to fight evil.

  2. Do they realize that one in three women will have an abortion during their lifetime? One in three! Are they proposing executing one-third of women, then?

    And 60% of abortions are by women who already have children. So what happens to the children when their mothers are executed?

    • I think they really believe that a) it will deter women from having abortions and b) deter doctors from performing them. The latter might be the case. If so, women will resort to back alley abortions.

      Do these zealots care that women will die? Obviously not, they’re willing to execute them. In their minds women who have abortions outta get what’s comin’ to ’em. Smh…

      • They have minds like dictators. In Romania, dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, made birth control and abortion illegal, and the result was a proliferation of babies in overcrowded institutions. In orphanages, ABC 20/20 visited in 1990, they saw babies stacked on the shelves of carts like loaves of bread with very little human contact. Most of these babies ended up with atrophied brains, attachment disorders, and/or other forms of mental illness.

        People, who force their authoritarian religion on others, never take into account the consequences.

        • A key insight, VN. I wish more people saw this totalitarian effect as clearly as you because this is the evidence staring Christian Warriors in the face spouting claims of higher morality on behalf of the potential babies ‘murdered’ by abortion but never willing to face the results of their intolerant and brutal position that inflicts tremendous harm and oftentimes horrible death on fully developed individuals when this stupidity is enacted in law.

            • ‘Obsessive’ is the right word for this sustained and systemic attack against legal equality, against personal rights and freedoms, against human dignity and respect for women as equal citizens, and is deeply anti-American. It is unconstitutional and despotic. It is totalitarian to its very core. Thinking anti-abortion policies and laws to be pious indicates the level of disconnect between real American enlightenment values and religiously inspired dictatorial ones that demand slavish submission to the Divine Dear Leader abusing civil laws to attain this conquest.

  3. What’s wrong with believing in human exceptionalism? What’s the harm?

    Well, here we see it in action again.

    For those who don’t understand biology, human life is arbitrarily claimed to start at conception (it doesn’t; it started a few billion years ago and we’re one expression of it on a continuum). It’s claimed to start at conception so that we have a moment captured in time where this thing that makes us special is inserted, namely the ‘soul’ (forget we have absolutely no shred of evidence for any such ‘thing’). Because each human at conception is now bequeathed a soul… from some god, no less, who really really really cares about each and every sperm and egg (but doesn’t mind wiping their developed expressions by whim), we really are very special, you see. And because we’re so very special at conception, which is when we are fully human donchaknow, then it only makes sense to endow human rights (not so much freedoms) at that moment on that blastocyst for godly reasons. And we all want legal protection, don’t we?

    The argument is so patently stupid, devoid of any knowledge base, and circular that it takes a ‘special’ kind of brain to think it reasonable, namely, one utterly befuddled by the religious meme that supplants knowledge with faith-addled belief in woo and divine Oogity Boogity!.

  4. What is the penalty before the law concerning genocide?

    Abortion, aka the Great Prenatal Genocide is the greatest legal mass murder in human history.

    Because modern science has determined that human life begins at conception, advocates of abortion, like their atheist brethren are the human race’s most deadly deniers of science.

    So the atheist has rational basis for demonizing Christians since their religious beliefs are consistent with the discoveries of modern science.

    There are two Christians arguments concerning the death penalty; one in favor and one against.

    1. Justice demands an eye for an eye. That is, if someone commits murder (abortion is murder of the innocent unborn) their own life is forfeit.

    2. Life is an unalienable gift from God. Therefore, it is a matter of both divine and natural law that no person, group of people or government may take the life of anyone, for any reason.

    Reason #2 is the present position of the Catholic Church.

  5. Not surprised to hear this is coming from Florida…which ironically hosts Spring Break every freaking year where it is ok to have thousands of underage kids consuming massive amounts of alcohol…ok that makes complete sense…All I know is I am happy I am way North of that insanity.

  6. Reminds me of a meme I saw recently where an American said they were moving to Canada because Trump was elected. They get to the Canadian border and the border people tell them that they have to turn back because they have decided to build a wall…and they were going to pay for it.

  7. So here the crazy Christian extremists go again – which is why I personally think that ANY religion that goes to extremes is a Yuge Yuge mistake – But if they are going to pass this into a law – wouldn’t it also be ever so nice if they would figure out a way to subsidize the medical, childcare and parental costs for all those babies, including the medically and physically damaged babies that they so awesomely want to bring into this ever so kind world??

  8. I have no problem with anyone having religious beliefs, I have them too. However, like so many others, I won’t force my beliefs on anyone else by monkeying with the law, threat or intimidation, manipulating social structures or like in my adopted home of Great Britain, playing the race card.

  9. I consider myself pro-life. To me, that also means no death sentence. If we (as Christians or just nice people, etc) want to change the way things are done, then we have to change the way people think about them. The fact of the matter is that faith does affect how people vote, how policies are made, etc. I can only really approach this from a theoretical standpoint, but here’s my take. I think the potential for life is just as valuable as life itself. If the potential is there, meaning if an egg has been fertilized, then that potential must be allowed to grow into life itself, if it is in fact going to. All that being said, I do equate abortion with premeditated murder.

    • FGP, you say, “…if an egg has been fertilized, then that potential must be allowed to grow into life itself,”

      Well, there you go. ‘Must.”

      Must it?

      So much for respecting the rights and freedoms of others.

      Your beliefs and this kind of faith-based and religiously addled opinion (with zero regard for real world medicine, real world issues, real world concerns of real people far more immersed in this issue than you will ever be and of which you know zip but don’t seem to particularly care) just sentenced thousands and thousands of women to death.

      But, hey, just your opinion, right?

      Yeah, pro life indeed.

      • Well, okay, the “must,” was a poor word choice. Seriously, I meant this as an opinion. Is “should” more appropriate here? You’re right, I don’t know a lot about pregnancy, medicine, etc, let alone peoples’ individual circumstances. I should have added that I do believe, in cases where a woman’s life is in danger, it should be her choice what to do. I honestly do believe that.

        • That’s better. How about you respect women enough to think that they – like you – can take all the facts of their situation into account and make the best decision for them, their children, their families, their lives, as well as consider what the loss of that potential child means to them?

          It is so incredibly condescending and arrogant for so many people – especially religious people – to assume they know best, that they presume the worst about women who seek abortions that they forget each one undergoes a trial of conscience that only they themselves can fully appreciate and properly weigh.

          I think more of us need to step back from our eagerness to judge others by our own scale in this matter and understand that our opinions properly belong only to judging ourselves.

          It is a huge slap in the face to presume that we have the right – especially the presumptive moral right when it comes to religious belief – to tell others (well, to be honest, command others) what they must or should do when that invitation has never been extended and is in fact none of our business.

          If you expect others to have enough respect for you to keep clear of your private business, then you should extend that same respect to others… even if they don;t do as you want them to do. That’s what respect of other’s freedom looks like in action.

          • Did you ever take into consideration the possibility (fact) that I am a woman? I know it’s not something to be taken lightly. I also know, however, that people, including women, are selfish and I simply don’t want anyone to underestimate the value of even the possibility of life. You don’t know me. It would be incredibly unkind to judge someone because of an irreversible action they took for whatever reason. I judge the action, not the people.

              • My gender is not irrelevant here. You ask “How about you respect women enough to think that they – like you – can take all the facts of their situation into account and make the best decision for them, their children…?” You think I don’t? Is deciding to terminate a child’s life, unless it’s absolutely necessary to preserve your own a respectable decision when that child can’t even think for itself, let alone speak for itself yet?

                In the case where it is medically necessary to make the choice between a mother’s life and her child’s, let her make that decision. That’s an incredibly difficult decision, and I have a mountain of respect for that. What I do have a problem with is when women put their bodies at risk for the sake of pleasure, and think it’s perfectly reasonable and acceptable to terminate life with no consequences.

                What’s wrong with telling someone what I think they should do if I do it in a respectable way? For the most part, I mind my own business. I vote and I blog. In fact, to this day, I have not blogged about this topic on my own site. I don’t loudly protest and call people nasty names for doing something I disagree with. Yes, I disagree with it in principal, but as I said, I judge the action, not the people.

                • What I do have a problem with is when women put their bodies at risk for the sake of pleasure, and think it’s perfectly reasonable and acceptable to terminate life with no consequences.

                  Project much?

                  Look, what you’re demonstrating is classical thinking… classical in the sense that you state premises and then assume they are true and then assume that because the conclusion follows, it is then supported by reality.

                  For example, have you ever considered that life isn’t a thing, isn’t a substance, isn’t a state but an ongoing process? This understanding has significant ramifications for your premises in that what you presume is a ‘termination’ of a life isn’t.

                  I know that idea is disturbing and one that I think you’ll be sorely tempted to immediately reject out of hand (if you’re like most people) and then get busy rationalizing why you feel this rejection is warranted rather than understand why anyone might suggest that life is indeed a process and not a thing. That viewpoint has overwhelming biological evidence to support it, by the way. Does that matter to you?

                  This understanding that life is an ongoing, uninterrupted process matters in that an abortion is NOT a termination of a life but a termination of another process called pregnancy. The blastocyst itself isn’t alive, you see. It has as much life as the stem cells on your nose you discard by the hundreds of thousands with every swipe of a finger. In this sense, the cellular clump being aborted to end the process of pregnancy isn’t any more special than any other group of cells so what isn’t independently alive cannot be killed, you see (unless you’re willing to classify us nose wipers as mass killers). And that understanding has a huge ramification on the truth value of your central pillar of understanding upon which you have built the opinion you have, that a blastocyst is a special exemption… because you think it is.

                  If you cared as much for women as you seem to want to care for the safety of their bodies, then why aren’t you attributing to men their truly despicable role seeking pleasure impregnating females? Where’s the condemnation for them intentionally putting women’s bodies at such risk? Why is the woman’s body more important to you than her right to decide how it will be used? Does her mental health rank lower in your esteemed opinion? Does her right to decide rank lower than yours to decide for her within the confines of your expressed opinion?

                  It’s one thing to say I would not choose to abort in almost any circumstance. It’s quite another to say I don;t think YOU should abort in almost every circumstance. The former is self contained; the latter is failing to recognize a necessary and self-regulating border. Couching it in terms of ‘concern’ for the other’s health and welfare is camouflage for trying to impose your beliefs on others but then expecting others to respect your boundaries. Nu-uh; can’t have it both ways. That’s hypocritical.

                  I don’t think you have really thought your position through. I think you’re parroting what seems to be a reasonable pro-life argument without seriously questioning it – and its assumptions – with healthy skepticism.

                  • Okay, I understand your premise that life is a process, not a thing. In fact, I can accept that from a strictly scientific standpoint. I can even accept your premise that when an abortion is performed one is terminating a pregnancy, not a “life.” However, in ending that process, one is still blotting out the possibility of an individual growing and developing, which still leads me to question how much value you actually put on any given individual person.

                    I do blame men for putting women in danger, but that wasn’t really part of our original argument. Our original argument was about whether or not, and if so, when, abortion was an acceptable process.

                    Any person’s mental health is just as important as their physical health. Not enough people understand that. However, I think we’ve reached an impasse. I really can’t see this argument coming to a friendly conclusion, so I’ll stop.

  10. Oh god, I’m probably going to regret putting these words out on the internet for people to read, but I’m me. To minimize the damage, let me first say that I agree with your position almost entirely, along with the positions of the majority of the comments that I’ve taken the time to read. Sorry to those I didn’t read.

    I’m the kind of guy who will sometimes defend those I disagree with, but I can sound like a jerk doing it. It’s hard not to. Two things, first it is intimated in your post, and stated directly in a comment or two that this is a problem of religious idiocy. I have to point out, because I find it important to say so, not all pro-lifers are religious or believe in the pro-life stance because of religious convictions. I realize that most are religious, and that it is largely a religious movement. It still seems important to me not to trivialize their point of view unnecessarily. Before I move on, I want to say that I don’t think anyone was trying to trivialize it. I just think it’s worth saying, and I’m sure more than one person will agree with me, that even without the religious angle, this measure is wrong.

    Point two, I don’t find the name Pro-Life hypocritical. Stupid, maybe, but not hypocritical. It’s kind of like the Black Lives Matter movement. I realize that I just stepped on a landmine, but bear with me. A lot of people use this complaint, “If they really care about Black Lives then why aren’t they helping out with” insert crisis here. The Louisiana Floods are a good example. I explain to people that this argument is not a valid one because, in spite of the name, Black Lives Matter is not a group that exists to protect all Black Lives everywhere. They have a specific cause. Granted, they could have chosen a better name, just like the Pro-Life movement could have, but you can’t really define their cause according to their name.

    Last, I’m going to move on from my ill advised defense of a movement that I oppose and always have. There’s something about this story that you didn’t complain about that pisses me off beyond imagining. The petition isn’t asking for a bill. It’s asking for an amendment to a state constitution. What that means is that it’s not enough for them to have a law in place. They want to make it as difficult as possible for future generations to reverse it. That makes it more than just an immoral measure. It makes it a fanatical one.

    • “Oh god, I’m probably going to regret putting these words out on the internet for people to read, but I’m me. ”

      Nah. That’s what this blog is about – sharing ideas, even if they’re not popular and then discussing them.

      “I have to point out, because I find it important to say so, not all pro-lifers are religious or believe in the pro-life stance because of religious convictions”

      Agreed. Not all Christians are anti-gay and you certainly don’t have to be a Christian to be anti-LGBT.

      ““If they really care about Black Lives then why aren’t they helping out with” insert crisis here. The Louisiana Floods are a good example. I explain to people that this argument is not a valid one because, in spite of the name, Black Lives Matter is not a group that exists to protect all Black Lives everywhere. ”

      I disagree because they are two different sorts of comparisons. If you’re pro-life, then you should be pro-life. By advocating for things like killing doctors, women or criminals, then you could be against abortion but you’re not pro-life.

      Life is life.

      “The petition isn’t asking for a bill. It’s asking for an amendment to a state constitution. What that means is that it’s not enough for them to have a law in place. They want to make it as difficult as possible for future generations to reverse it.”

      Fucking good point mate.

  11. Pingback: Florida Christians Push For The Death Penalty For Those Having An Abortion | Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s